Slate magazine recently ran an article arguing that the Supreme Court's Obergefell decision will eventually allow for the "marriage" between humans and robots. Slate boils the argument down to this statement:
"Robot-human marriage is not about robot rights; it is about the right of a human to choose to marry a robot."
Writing for Aleteia, Denise O'Leary responds:
[T]his is an argument for the right to marry something that is not human and not a self. That was bound to happen, of course, as the concept of marriage degenerates from a covenant down to a status marker. Forcing others to recognize one’s machine as a spouse would be a social triumph, of sorts.
There are, of course, those who think we can teach machines to understand us, but the problem is, one can’t “teach” a machine to have a self or care.
And others, more ambitious still, think that AI will make religion obsolete:
... the only way for there to be a good future is if we save ourselves. No gods will save us because there are no gods—unless we become gods.
We’ve heard all that stuff before and it has always ended in catastrophe.
If AI were ever to reach the point of marriage to robots, people would essentially be marrying themselves. But perhaps that is what many now want.
The notion that humans someday may be able to legally marry robots exposes the full-blown narcissism behind the same sex marriage movement. Marriage is not for the self, but rather, for the good of the family. Failure to recognize this basic tenet of marriage results in such absurdities as humans marrying robots.
See Aleteia for more.